We performed a comparison between Checkmarx and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The two solutions are very comparable. All categories received similar ratings except that Checkmarx got better rewviews on deployment and support.
"The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable."
"The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects."
"The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking."
"The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"The most valuable feature is the simple user interface."
"It shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are."
"The features that I have found most valuable include its security scan, the vulnerability finds, and the web interface to search and review the issues."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
"We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients."
"The vulnerability detection and scanning are awesome features."
"The solution is very fast."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed."
"The licensing was good."
"Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out."
"Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance. Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL?"
"Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices."
"As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to."
"The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size."
"Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added."
"In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated."
"The cost per user is high and should be reduced."
"It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"The solution has some issues with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed."
"There were some regulated compliances, which were not there."
"During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"Reporting could be improved."
"The UI could be better. Fortify should also suggest new packages in the product that can be upgraded. Currently, it shows that, but it's not visible enough. In future versions, I would like more insights about the types of vulnerabilities and the pages associated with the exact CVE."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while Fortify on Demand is ranked 11th in Application Security Tools with 56 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while Fortify on Demand is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortify on Demand writes "Provides good depth of scanning but is unfortunately not fully integrated with CIT processes ". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Snyk, Coverity and Mend.io, whereas Fortify on Demand is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Coverity, Fortify WebInspect and Snyk. See our Checkmarx One vs. Fortify on Demand report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors and best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.